(net) Force is a measure of the net thrust exerted on a body of matter to"move"; or _accelerate_ it. The ratio of the net force [f] to theacceleration [a] that it causes, is a constant: m = f/a.

(net) Weight is a measure of that particular thrust exerted between(resting) bodies and Earth's surface; which restrains them from acceleratingcentripetally. The ratio of the net weight [w] to the deceleration [g] thatit causes, is a constant: m = w/g.

These ratios [f/a = w/g] are each measures of the "inertness" of the bodythat they apply to:

The simplest way to measure any of these thrusts is with weight-scales;which are [usually] designed for use here on Earth; where the accelerationof free fall averages about 32.174'/sec² [9.81 m/sec²]; where an adjustmentis usually provided on good scales to set them to a reading of zero beforeeach use.

Titan Point

2003-09-14 18:17:26 UTC

Post by Donald G. Shead(net) Force is a measure of the net thrust exerted on a body of matter to"move"; or _accelerate_ it. The ratio of the net force [f] to theacceleration [a] that it causes, is a constant: m = f/a.(net) Weight is a measure of that particular thrust exerted between(resting) bodies and Earth's surface; which restrains them from acceleratingcentripetally. The ratio of the net weight [w] to the deceleration [g] thatit causes, is a constant: m = w/g.These ratios [f/a = w/g] are each measures of the "inertness" of the bodyThe simplest way to measure any of these thrusts is with weight-scales;which are [usually] designed for use here on Earth; where the accelerationof free fall averages about 32.174'/sec² [9.81 m/sec²]; where an adjustmentis usually provided on good scales to set them to a reading of zero beforeeach use.

Post by Donald G. Shead(net) Force is a measure of the net thrust exerted on a body of matter to"move"; or _accelerate_ it. The ratio of the net force [f] to theacceleration [a] that it causes, is a constant: m = f/a.(net) Weight is a measure of that particular thrust exerted between(resting) bodies and Earth's surface; which restrains them from acceleratingcentripetally. The ratio of the net weight [w] to the deceleration [g] thatit causes, is a constant: m = w/g.These ratios [f/a = w/g] are each measures of the "inertness" of the bodyThe simplest way to measure any of these thrusts is with weight-scales;which are [usually] designed for use here on Earth; where the accelerationof free fall averages about 32.174'/sec² [9.81 m/sec²]; where an adjustmentis usually provided on good scales to set them to a reading of zero beforeeach use.

Is this man on a personal journey to discover 17th Century Physics?

No Titan; 17th Century Physics was discovered already, but its best ideas;including those of Rene' Descarte's vortices, and Galileo Galilei's Rate offree fall [s/t² = 16'/sec²] in vacuum, were never properly understood, orproperly developed and were not assimilated into mainstream physics; beforeNewton got ahold of it and transformed it _his way_; with the calculus andseveral other distractions, the meaning of which we're still trying tofigure out.

Anyway, I'm a simple guy with only a mechanical aptitude, and a modicum ofcommon sense: I see the principles of physics as the simple mechanicalworking of particles and bodies of matter moving and thrusting against eachother in the vast emptyness of space. It's not nearly as complicated asyou're all making it out to be.

Robert J. Kolker

2003-09-15 00:25:34 UTC

Post by Donald G. Sheadworking of particles and bodies of matter moving and thrusting against eachother in the vast emptyness of space. It's not nearly as complicated asyou're all making it out to be.

Account for the motion of a moving electron in a magnetic field, bysimple minded means. There is nothing in Newtonion, Cartesean orGalilean mechanics that could possible have predicted Oersteads discovery.

Now do a simple minded common sense thought experiment. Take a magneticcompass and put it near a wire aligned to it goes toward magnetic north.Put a current through the wire. What will happen to the needle of thecompass. No cheating now. Just use common sense and good old fashionedmechanical ability.

There is nothing in the purely mechanical physics of the 16-th, 17-thand 18-th centuries that could have predicted the result.

Post by Donald G. Sheadworking of particles and bodies of matter moving and thrusting against eachother in the vast emptyness of space. It's not nearly as complicated asyou're all making it out to be.

Account for the motion of a moving electron in a magnetic field, bysimple minded means. There is nothing in Newtonion, Cartesean orGalilean mechanics that could possible have predicted Oersteads discovery.

Hans Christian Ørsted 1777-1851 Danish physicist & chemist; founded thescience of electromagnetism: Are you insinuating that it had nothing to dowith Newtonion, Cartesean orGalilean mechanics?

Post by Robert J. KolkerNow do a simple minded common sense thought experiment. Take a magneticcompass and put it near a wire aligned to it goes toward magnetic north.Put a current through the wire. What will happen to the needle of thecompass. No cheating now. Just use common sense and good old fashionedmechanical ability.

Well you're right in one respect. Mechanical ability _is_ getting rarer andmore old fashioned. Even to me: I don't, and can't fix my car anymore; notsince about 1982, and all the sealed components - electronic and otherwise -in various appliances have be pretty well buffaloed.

It's not what we observe about electromagnetism, or the thought experimentsthat we can concoct; it's what's really going on mechanically that mattersmost. Einstein got a compass as a boy, and playing around with that set offhis wild thought experiment theory about clocks receding from us at thespeed of light so that to us; they _appear_ to be stopped; while in realitythey just keep ticking along.

Post by Robert J. KolkerThere is nothing in the purely mechanical physics of the 16-th, 17-thand 18-th centuries that could have predicted the result.

Physics wasn't _purely_ mechanical then or now, any more than it was toØrsted. I'm sure he didn't start from nothing: It takes more than 'simpleminded means'; but a little (God given) common sense helps a whole lot.

It is, in some limited ways, as you think, however inother ways it is a lot more complex.

Well of course Bill, but a lot of that complexity is brought about by thekind of people who think that complexity is better; because it requires morebrilliance.

They don't understand that the science of old - suppressed largely by "thechurch" - was _in some respects_ better than some of the modern screwballtheories; [over, and by which the "church" is now being suppressed].

Post by Donald G. Shead(net) Force is a measure of the net thrust exerted on a body of matter to"move"; or _accelerate_ it. The ratio of the net force [f] to theacceleration [a] that it causes, is a constant: m = f/a.(net) Weight is a measure of that particular thrust exerted between(resting) bodies and Earth's surface; which restrains them from acceleratingcentripetally. The ratio of the net weight [w] to the deceleration [g] thatit causes, is a constant: m = w/g.These ratios [f/a = w/g] are each measures of the "inertness" of the bodyThe simplest way to measure any of these thrusts is with weight-scales;which are [usually] designed for use here on Earth; where the accelerationof free fall averages about 32.174'/sec² [9.81 m/sec²]; where an adjustmentis usually provided on good scales to set them to a reading of zero beforeeach use.

Is this man on a personal journey to discover 17th Century Physics?

Without '17th Century Physics' you woundn't have 21st Century Physics.

Post by Donald G. Shead(net) Force is a measure of the net thrust exerted on a body of matter to"move"; or _accelerate_ it. The ratio of the net force [f] to theacceleration [a] that it causes, is a constant: m = f/a.(net) Weight is a measure of that particular thrust exerted between(resting) bodies and Earth's surface; which restrains them from acceleratingcentripetally. The ratio of the net weight [w] to the deceleration [g] thatit causes, is a constant: m = w/g.These ratios [f/a = w/g] are each measures of the "inertness" of the bodyThe simplest way to measure any of these thrusts is with weight-scales;which are [usually] designed for use here on Earth; where the accelerationof free fall averages about 32.174'/sec² [9.81 m/sec²]; where an adjustmentis usually provided on good scales to set them to a reading of zero beforeeach use.

Is this man on a personal journey to discover 17th Century Physics?

Without '17th Century Physics' you woundn't have 21st Century Physics.

Obviously YOU haven't learned anything from Shead (that's probably agood thing). That isn't the way time works in Dense Donny'sDreamworld.

S*head wants to correct the "error" made in the introduction of themetric system in the 1790s, by going back to the gravitational fpssystem with the slug, something that wasn't invented until the 20thcentury and which didn't appear in physics textbooks before 1940 (andwhich has pretty much disappeared from them now).

He does this in part by pretending that pounds, which have been unitsof mass since they were first used, and which are most often units ofmass today, do not exist. He instead pretends that the pound force, arecent bastardization (done to only one of the hundreds of differentpounds used throughout history) that was never well defined before the20th century, is the only pound that ever existed.

The sad part is that there are today many science teachers (especiallyin the U.S.) who are just as stupid as Dense Donny on that last point,and worse yet, there are now a few textbook authors who were so poorlyeducated themselves that they believe the same nonsense.

Post by Donald G. Shead(net) Force is a measure of the net thrust exerted on a body of matter to"move"; or _accelerate_ it. The ratio of the net force [f] to theacceleration [a] that it causes, is a constant: m = f/a.(net) Weight is a measure of that particular thrust exerted between(resting) bodies and Earth's surface; which restrains them from acceleratingcentripetally. The ratio of the net weight [w] to the deceleration [g] thatit causes, is a constant: m = w/g.These ratios [f/a = w/g] are each measures of the "inertness" of the bodyThe simplest way to measure any of these thrusts is with

Post by Donald G. Sheadwhich are [usually] designed for use here on Earth; where the accelerationof free fall averages about 32.174'/sec² [9.81 m/sec²]; where an adjustmentis usually provided on good scales to set them to a reading of zero beforeeach use.

Is this man on a personal journey to discover 17th Century Physics?

Without '17th Century Physics' you woundn't have 21st Century Physics.

Obviously YOU haven't learned anything from Shead (that's probably agood thing). That isn't the way time works in Dense Donny'sDreamworld.S*head wants to correct the "error" made in the introduction of themetric system in the 1790s, by going back to the gravitational fpssystem with the slug, something that wasn't invented until the 20thcentury and which didn't appear in physics textbooks before 1940 (andwhich has pretty much disappeared from them now).He does this in part by pretending that pounds, which have been unitsof mass since they were first used, and which are most often units ofmass today, do not exist. He instead pretends that the pound force, arecent bastardization (done to only one of the hundreds of differentpounds used throughout history) that was never well defined before the20th century, is the only pound that ever existed.The sad part is that there are today many science teachers (especiallyin the U.S.) who are just as stupid as Dense Donny on that last point,and worse yet, there are now a few textbook authors who were so poorlyeducated themselves that they believe the same nonsense.Gene NygaardTime flies like an arrow;fruit flies like a banana.

B.S. filter belatedly activated(;^) You seem to know everything Gene. Except_the important fact_ about the slug being a unit of inertia; the measure ofthe matter in a body of mass, and that weight is the heaviness of matter;which varies in proportion to the rate at which it will free fall [s/t² =16'/sec²].

Post by Donald G. Shead"move"; or _accelerate_ it. The ratio of the net force [f] to theacceleration [a] that it causes, is a constant: m = f/a.(net) Weight is a measure of that particular thrust exerted between(resting) bodies and Earth's surface; which restrains them from

Without '17th Century Physics' you woundn't have 21st Century Physics.

Obviously YOU haven't learned anything from Shead (that's probably agood thing). That isn't the way time works in Dense Donny'sDreamworld.S*head wants to correct the "error" made in the introduction of themetric system in the 1790s, by going back to the gravitational fpssystem with the slug, something that wasn't invented until the 20thcentury and which didn't appear in physics textbooks before 1940 (andwhich has pretty much disappeared from them now).He does this in part by pretending that pounds, which have been unitsof mass since they were first used, and which are most often units ofmass today, do not exist. He instead pretends that the pound force, arecent bastardization (done to only one of the hundreds of differentpounds used throughout history) that was never well defined before the20th century, is the only pound that ever existed.The sad part is that there are today many science teachers (especiallyin the U.S.) who are just as stupid as Dense Donny on that last point,and worse yet, there are now a few textbook authors who were so poorlyeducated themselves that they believe the same nonsense.Gene NygaardTime flies like an arrow;fruit flies like a banana.

B.S. filter belatedly activated(;^) You seem to know everything Gene. Except_the important fact_ about the slug being a unit of inertia; the measure ofthe matter in a body of mass, and that weight is the heaviness of matter;which varies in proportion to the rate at which it will free fall [s/t² =16'/sec²].

Non sequitur.

Notice how I hit the nail on the head as far as summarizing S*head'sarguments, so he didn't even address the points I raised. The best hecan do is to throw in some irrelevant nonsense.

Post by Donald G. SheadB.S. filter belatedly activated(;^) You seem to know everything Gene. Except_the important fact_ about the slug being a unit of inertia; the measure ofthe matter in a body of mass, and that weight is the heaviness of matter;which varies in proportion to the rate at which it will free fall [s/t² =16'/sec²].

Non sequitur.Notice how I hit the nail on the head as far as summarizing S*head'sarguments, so he didn't even address the points I raised. The best hecan do is to throw in some irrelevant nonsense.

Post by Donald G. SheadB.S. filter belatedly activated(;^) You seem to know everything Gene. Except_the important fact_ about the slug being a unit of inertia; the measure ofthe matter in a body of mass, and that weight is the heaviness of matter;which varies in proportion to the rate at which it will free fall [s/t² =16'/sec²].

Non sequitur.Notice how I hit the nail on the head as far as summarizing S*head'sarguments, so he didn't even address the points I raised. The best hecan do is to throw in some irrelevant nonsense.

What I notice is the local propensity to revert to Schwartzisms.

Who was Schwartz, and what is a Schwartzism? It isn't in any of thedictionaries I have, nor any I looked at online, nor does a web searchfind anything useful.

Post by Gene NygaardNotice how I hit the nail on the head as far as summarizing S*head'sarguments, so he didn't even address the points I raised. The best hecan do is to throw in some irrelevant nonsense.

What I notice is the local propensity to revert to Schwartzisms.

Who was Schwartz, and what is a Schwartzism? It isn't in any of thedictionaries I have, nor any I looked at online, nor does a web searchfind anything useful.Where does this "local propensity" lie?I think you are using words too big for your brain, Bill.

Post by Gene NygaardNotice how I hit the nail on the head as far as summarizing S*head'sarguments, so he didn't even address the points I raised. The best hecan do is to throw in some irrelevant nonsense.

What I notice is the local propensity to revert to Schwartzisms.

Who was Schwartz, and what is a Schwartzism? It isn't in any of thedictionaries I have, nor any I looked at online, nor does a web searchfind anything useful.Where does this "local propensity" lie?I think you are using words too big for your brain, Bill.

There you go again....... LOL

Like I though, just a wise ass who doesn't know what he's talkingabout, with nothing to contribute to the thread. I still don't knowwhat a Schwartzism is. Do you think that changing the subject headeris going to find somebody else who can explain what you mean? Or isit just a convience to help everybody block out your incomprehensiblebabble as well as anybody foolish enough to respond to you?

Gene Nygaardhttp://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/Gene_Nygaard/Gentlemen of the jury, Chicolini here may look like an idiot,and sound like an idiot, but don't let that fool you: Hereally is an idiot.Groucho Marx

Bill Vajk

2003-09-15 22:02:29 UTC

Post by Gene NygaardLike I though, just a wise ass who doesn't know what he's talkingabout, with nothing to contribute to the thread. I still don't knowwhat a Schwartzism is. Do you think that changing the subject headeris going to find somebody else who can explain what you mean? Or isit just a convience to help everybody block out your incomprehensiblebabble as well as anybody foolish enough to respond to you?

Sometimes the best approach is to let someone wriggle intheir own ignorance. That's what I'll do this time asI think you're deserving.

Post by Gene NygaardLike I though, just a wise ass who doesn't know what he's talkingabout, with nothing to contribute to the thread. I still don't knowwhat a Schwartzism is. Do you think that changing the subject headeris going to find somebody else who can explain what you mean? Or isit just a convience to help everybody block out your incomprehensiblebabble as well as anybody foolish enough to respond to you?

Sometimes the best approach is to let someone wriggle intheir own ignorance. That's what I'll do this time asI think you're deserving.

Post by Donald G. Shead(net) Force is a measure of the net thrust exerted on a body of matter to"move"; or _accelerate_ it. The ratio of the net force [f] to theacceleration [a] that it causes, is a constant: m = f/a.(net) Weight is a measure of that particular thrust exerted between(resting) bodies and Earth's surface; which restrains them from acceleratingcentripetally. The ratio of the net weight [w] to the deceleration [g] thatit causes, is a constant: m = w/g.These ratios [f/a = w/g] are each measures of the "inertness" of the bodyThe simplest way to measure any of these thrusts is with weight-scales;which are [usually] designed for use here on Earth; where the accelerationof free fall averages about 32.174'/sec² [9.81 m/sec²]; where an adjustmentis usually provided on good scales to set them to a reading of zero beforeeach use.

Is this man on a personal journey to discover 17th Century Physics?

Without '17th Century Physics' you woundn't have 21st Century Physics.

Obviously YOU haven't learned anything from Shead (that's probably agood thing). That isn't the way time works in Dense Donny'sDreamworld.

Who is 'Shead' and who the fuck is 'Dense Donny'? Without thephysicists of the 17th > 18th... centuries the physicists of this 21stcentury wouldn't have been able to do the work they do, i.e. thephysicists of the past lay down the foundations of future work.

Post by Gene NygaardS*head wants to correct the "error" made in the introduction of themetric system in the 1790s, by going back to the gravitational fpssystem with the slug, something that wasn't invented until the 20thcentury and which didn't appear in physics textbooks before 1940 (andwhich has pretty much disappeared from them now).He does this in part by pretending that pounds, which have been unitsof mass since they were first used, and which are most often units ofmass today, do not exist. He instead pretends that the pound force, arecent bastardization (done to only one of the hundreds of differentpounds used throughout history) that was never well defined before the20th century, is the only pound that ever existed.The sad part is that there are today many science teachers (especiallyin the U.S.) who are just as stupid as Dense Donny on that last point,and worse yet, there are now a few textbook authors who were so poorlyeducated themselves that they believe the same nonsense.Gene NygaardTime flies like an arrow;fruit flies like a banana.

Post by Donald G. Shead(net) Force is a measure of the net thrust exerted on a body of matter to"move"; or _accelerate_ it. The ratio of the net force [f] to theacceleration [a] that it causes, is a constant: m = f/a.(net) Weight is a measure of that particular thrust exerted between(resting) bodies and Earth's surface; which restrains them from acceleratingcentripetally. The ratio of the net weight [w] to the deceleration [g] thatit causes, is a constant: m = w/g.These ratios [f/a = w/g] are each measures of the "inertness" of the bodyThe simplest way to measure any of these thrusts is with weight-scales;which are [usually] designed for use here on Earth; where the accelerationof free fall averages about 32.174'/sec² [9.81 m/sec²]; where an adjustmentis usually provided on good scales to set them to a reading of zero beforeeach use.

Is this man on a personal journey to discover 17th Century Physics?

Without '17th Century Physics' you woundn't have 21st Century Physics.

Obviously YOU haven't learned anything from Shead (that's probably agood thing). That isn't the way time works in Dense Donny'sDreamworld.

Who is 'Shead' and who the fuck is 'Dense Donny'? Without the

It doesn't cost you any more to pay attention.

One and the same, Donald Shead is the self styled "bridge engineer"who started this thread, an old fart who dropped out of grade schoolmore than 60 years ago. He's the one described above as a "man on apersonal journey to discover 17th Century Physics."

Post by Christopherphysicists of the 17th > 18th... centuries the physicists of this 21stcentury wouldn't have been able to do the work they do, i.e. thephysicists of the past lay down the foundations of future work.

Post by Gene NygaardS*head wants to correct the "error" made in the introduction of themetric system in the 1790s, by going back to the gravitational fpssystem with the slug, something that wasn't invented until the 20thcentury and which didn't appear in physics textbooks before 1940 (andwhich has pretty much disappeared from them now).He does this in part by pretending that pounds, which have been unitsof mass since they were first used, and which are most often units ofmass today, do not exist. He instead pretends that the pound force, arecent bastardization (done to only one of the hundreds of differentpounds used throughout history) that was never well defined before the20th century, is the only pound that ever existed.The sad part is that there are today many science teachers (especiallyin the U.S.) who are just as stupid as Dense Donny on that last point,and worse yet, there are now a few textbook authors who were so poorlyeducated themselves that they believe the same nonsense.Gene NygaardTime flies like an arrow;fruit flies like a banana.

Post by Donald G. Shead(net) Force is a measure of the net thrust exerted on a body of matter to"move"; or _accelerate_ it. The ratio of the net force [f] to theacceleration [a] that it causes, is a constant: m = f/a.(net) Weight is a measure of that particular thrust exerted between(resting) bodies and Earth's surface; which restrains them from acceleratingcentripetally. The ratio of the net weight [w] to the deceleration [g] thatit causes, is a constant: m = w/g.These ratios [f/a = w/g] are each measures of the "inertness" of the bodyThe simplest way to measure any of these thrusts is with weight-scales;which are [usually] designed for use here on Earth; where the accelerationof free fall averages about 32.174'/sec² [9.81 m/sec²]; where an adjustmentis usually provided on good scales to set them to a reading of zero beforeeach use.

Is this man on a personal journey to discover 17th Century Physics?

Without '17th Century Physics' you woundn't have 21st Century Physics.

Obviously YOU haven't learned anything from Shead (that's probably agood thing). That isn't the way time works in Dense Donny'sDreamworld.

Who is 'Shead' and who the fuck is 'Dense Donny'? Without the

It doesn't cost you any more to pay attention.

Lets see you join a newsgroup or its thread and immediately becomeaquainted with who's who. PLONK.

Post by Gene NygaardOne and the same, Donald Shead is the self styled "bridge engineer"who started this thread, an old fart

Post by Christopherphysicists of the 17th > 18th... centuries the physicists of this 21stcentury wouldn't have been able to do the work they do, i.e. thephysicists of the past lay down the foundations of future work.

Post by Gene NygaardS*head wants to correct the "error" made in the introduction of themetric system in the 1790s, by going back to the gravitational fpssystem with the slug, something that wasn't invented until the 20thcentury and which didn't appear in physics textbooks before 1940 (andwhich has pretty much disappeared from them now).He does this in part by pretending that pounds, which have been unitsof mass since they were first used, and which are most often units ofmass today, do not exist. He instead pretends that the pound force, arecent bastardization (done to only one of the hundreds of differentpounds used throughout history) that was never well defined before the20th century, is the only pound that ever existed.The sad part is that there are today many science teachers (especiallyin the U.S.) who are just as stupid as Dense Donny on that last point,and worse yet, there are now a few textbook authors who were so poorlyeducated themselves that they believe the same nonsense.Gene NygaardTime flies like an arrow;fruit flies like a banana.

Post by Donald G. Shead(net) Force is a measure of the net thrust exerted on a body of matter to"move"; or _accelerate_ it. The ratio of the net force [f] to theacceleration [a] that it causes, is a constant: m = f/a.(net) Weight is a measure of that particular thrust exerted between(resting) bodies and Earth's surface; which restrains them from acceleratingcentripetally. The ratio of the net weight [w] to the deceleration [g] thatit causes, is a constant: m = w/g.These ratios [f/a = w/g] are each measures of the "inertness" of the bodyThe simplest way to measure any of these thrusts is with weight-scales;which are [usually] designed for use here on Earth; where the accelerationof free fall averages about 32.174'/sec² [9.81 m/sec²]; where an adjustmentis usually provided on good scales to set them to a reading of zero beforeeach use.

Is this man on a personal journey to discover 17th Century Physics?

Without '17th Century Physics' you woundn't have 21st Century Physics.

Obviously YOU haven't learned anything from Shead (that's probably agood thing). That isn't the way time works in Dense Donny'sDreamworld.

Who is 'Shead' and who the fuck is 'Dense Donny'? Without the

It doesn't cost you any more to pay attention.

Lets see you join a newsgroup or its thread and immediately becomeaquainted with who's who. PLONK.

Post by Gene NygaardOne and the same, Donald Shead is the self styled "bridge engineer"who started this thread, an old fart

You'll be an 'old fart' to one day.

Old isn't Dense Donny's problems. I'll bet he was just as dumb beforehe dropped out of grade school, and a nightmare for his teachers.

Post by Gene NygaardHe's the one described above as a "man on apersonal journey to discover 17th Century Physics."

And he's as entitled to his views as you are to yours. If you don'tlike his posts don't read them. Simple.

Grow up.

He's entitled to his opinions. He isn't entitled to respect. Heneeds to earn that (and since he hasn't done so in the past 8 years,it's not likely he will in the few he's got left).

Furthermore, posting stuff people don't like shouldn't insulate anyonefrom responses from the rest of the group taking him to task foreither the nonsense of what he says or for the way he posts it, suchas his sometimes obnoxious use of things such as the Followup-Toheader to try to send any replies into oblivion.

There's no excuse for his continual bombardment with nonsense,especially the dishonest regurgitation of claims that have been provenfalse dozens (in some cases hundreds; do a Google search for DonaldShead) of times over, and which even he knows to be false (at least inhis rare lucid moments).

Post by Donald G. Shead(net) Force is a measure of the net thrust exerted on a body of matter to"move"; or _accelerate_ it. The ratio of the net force [f] to theacceleration [a] that it causes, is a constant: m = f/a.(net) Weight is a measure of that particular thrust exerted between(resting) bodies and Earth's surface; which restrains them from acceleratingcentripetally. The ratio of the net weight [w] to the deceleration [g] thatit causes, is a constant: m = w/g.These ratios [f/a = w/g] are each measures of the "inertness" of the bodyThe simplest way to measure any of these thrusts is with weight-scales;which are [usually] designed for use here on Earth; where the accelerationof free fall averages about 32.174'/sec² [9.81 m/sec²]; where an adjustmentis usually provided on good scales to set them to a reading of zero beforeeach use.

Is this man on a personal journey to discover 17th Century Physics?

Without '17th Century Physics' you woundn't have 21st Century Physics.

Obviously YOU haven't learned anything from Shead (that's probably agood thing). That isn't the way time works in Dense Donny'sDreamworld.

Who is 'Shead' and who the fuck is 'Dense Donny'? Without the

It doesn't cost you any more to pay attention.

Lets see you join a newsgroup or its thread and immediately becomeaquainted with who's who. PLONK.

Post by Gene NygaardOne and the same, Donald Shead is the self styled "bridge engineer"who started this thread, an old fart

You'll be an 'old fart' to one day.

Old isn't Dense Donny's problems. I'll bet he was just as dumb beforehe dropped out of grade school, and a nightmare for his teachers.

Post by Gene NygaardHe's the one described above as a "man on apersonal journey to discover 17th Century Physics."

And he's as entitled to his views as you are to yours. If you don'tlike his posts don't read them. Simple.

Grow up.

I am.

Post by Gene NygaardHe's entitled to his opinions. He isn't entitled to respect. Heneeds to earn that (and since he hasn't done so in the past 8 years,it's not likely he will in the few he's got left).

And yet you seem to continue to respond to him.

Post by Gene NygaardFurthermore, posting stuff people don't like shouldn't insulate anyonefrom responses from the rest of the group taking him to task foreither the nonsense of what he says or for the way he posts it, suchas his sometimes obnoxious use of things such as the Followup-Toheader to try to send any replies into oblivion.

If he was so bad the 'group' wouldn't respond. But his posts justseem to be a red-rag-to-a-bull, and the group can't resist responding.

Post by Gene NygaardThere's no excuse for his continual bombardment with nonsense,especially the dishonest regurgitation of claims that have been provenfalse dozens (in some cases hundreds; do a Google search for DonaldShead) of times over, and which even he knows to be false (at least inhis rare lucid moments).

Post by Donald G. Shead(net) Force is a measure of the net thrust exerted on a body of matter to"move"; or _accelerate_ it. The ratio of the net force [f] to theacceleration [a] that it causes, is a constant: m = f/a.(net) Weight is a measure of that particular thrust exerted between(resting) bodies and Earth's surface; which restrains them from acceleratingcentripetally. The ratio of the net weight [w] to the deceleration [g] thatit causes, is a constant: m = w/g.These ratios [f/a = w/g] are each measures of the "inertness" of the bodyThe simplest way to measure any of these thrusts is with weight-scales;which are [usually] designed for use here on Earth; where the accelerationof free fall averages about 32.174'/sec² [9.81 m/sec²]; where an adjustmentis usually provided on good scales to set them to a reading of zero beforeeach use.

Is this man on a personal journey to discover 17th Century Physics?

Without '17th Century Physics' you woundn't have 21st Century Physics.

Post by Donald G. Shead"move"; or _accelerate_ it. The ratio of the net force [f] to theacceleration [a] that it causes, is a constant: m = f/a.(net) Weight is a measure of that particular thrust exerted between(resting) bodies and Earth's surface; which restrains them from